#21 Highest Peak of All Time (West '66 wins)

[fatal9]

I used to be a lot higher on Chuck couple of years ago than I am now. Offensively, he's awesome. I had a problem with his shot selection some years but his offensive impact was huge. Commanded a double team in the post but also read defenses beautifully when that happened, amazing full court offense, lot of versatility (could face up and take you off the dribble, wear you out in post or hit a jumper), got you lots of second chance points, and straight up took over games in the playoffs offensively like we've never seen from anyone at his position.

Defensively though, you just give up too much. This is worse than Nash because having Barkley pretty much means you're sacrificing your entire interior defense. No shot blocking, extremely lazy team defender, couldn't contest shots of guys at his position, couldn't cover for his backcourt, there are times he would completely stop playing defense because whining was more important (some of the stuff I've seen is just...shocking). He didn't have the length to be a high impact defender but he didn't help himself with his effort either. He consistently was called out as worst defensive player in the 90s in league wide polls. His best hope to defend guys in the post was to "pull the chair" or gamble for steals, he had pretty much accepted that he wasn't going to stop them.

I always ranked peak Barkley over peak Malone because of the way better offense, but now I'm not that sure anymore. I'd still go with Barkley I think, his ability to go out and take over playoff games more frequently and offensively dictate the game is kind of the tie breaker here. '93 I'd say his midrange game was slightly better, skills a little bit better, he put more effort on defense but '90 Barkley was more explosive and his offensive efficiency was insane (and still pretty much had the same skillset).


My vote here is between Paul (who hasn't been getting discussed for whatever reason) and West. I'll go with '66 West because he has more momentum.

[Dr Positivity]

66 West (3) – Dr Positivity, ardee, fatal9
83 Moses (3) – JordansBulls, PTB Fan, SDChargers#1
03 Tmac (2) – C-izme, therealbig3

[C-izMe]

Baylor's in/out for 62 (could only find MOV):
+4 with
-.5 without

Not bad at all.


And if you have an argument for KD over Chuck I'd love to hear it GSP.

[Lightning25]

66 West (3) – Dr Positivity, ardee, fatal9
83 Moses (3) – JordansBulls, PTB Fan, SDChargers#1
03 Tmac (2) – C-izme, therealbig3

Vote: 1966 Jerry West

I actually do think West's peak was 66 but I thought most people on the voting panel was going to include that 68 West was going to be his peak so in the past I voted for 68 West. It is the most frustrating about the project and that's not knowing when someone's peak was.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Jerry West '66

I'll go ahead and make it official.

[JordansBulls]

Man, it seems like people got a vendetta against 1983 Moses or something.

[therealbig3]

Man, it seems like people got a vendetta against 1983 Moses or something.

It's not like you're making a case for him at all.

And for me personally, I've seen the case for Moses made by other posters, I'm not convinced, and I'm voting for other people before I get to him. I'm sure the other people not voting for Moses feel the same way. What's the issue here?

[therealbig3]

Switching my vote to 66 West.

[bastillon]

I'll vote for 66 West as well, just to complete the voting. let's go to #22. West is a good choice. although I argued against him and he's a bit overrated, he was still an amazing player.

[Lightning25]

My next 3 will be Moses, Barkley, and CP3 in that order.

I favor Moses over Barkley because Barkley was practically a negative on defense while Moses wasn't a negative. Moses was a mediocre defender but it's better to be a mediocre at something than to be a complete liability at it.

[Doctor MJ]

Alright, Jerry West '66 takes it.

[ThaRegul8r]

I favor Moses over Barkley because Barkley was practically a negative on defense while Moses wasn't a negative. Moses was a mediocre defender but it's better to be a mediocre at something than to be a complete liability at it.

I'm more critical of mediocre-to-bad defense at the center position than at any other. To other people it might not matter, but to me it does. Seeing how I can get scoring elsewhere (which might even be more preferable since you still have to get the center the ball), if the center isn't playing defense or doing it very well, then he's just about worthless as far as I'm concerned if I'm looking to build a team.

[Doctor MJ]

I favor Moses over Barkley because Barkley was practically a negative on defense while Moses wasn't a negative. Moses was a mediocre defender but it's better to be a mediocre at something than to be a complete liability at it.

I'm more critical of mediocre-to-bad defense at the center position than at any other. To other people it might not matter, but to me it does. Seeing how I can get scoring elsewhere (which might even be more preferable since you still have to get the center the ball), if the center isn't playing defense or doing it very well, then he's just about worthless as far as I'm concerned if I'm looking to build a team.

I'd say I think similarly, but I wouldn't put it that strongly.

I think the drop off on offense on big man is incredibly steep. You've got a Shaq who legit is the best offensive player in the world at his peak, and then you have a Ewing, one of the greats, but who if he isn't at his absolute peak, I don't know if I even want him as my volume scorer in a lot of situations.

And yet, big men are still THE type of player you want most. Why? Defense. And not just "gives a good effort, guards men his same size pretty well" but "scare the crap out of everyone on the court" defense.

Moses didn't have that, and his offensive numbers way overstate his impact.

With that said, I don't know if i could put any more centers ahead of him.